host_project_export

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the key traits: the operation does not change the project's saved filename/state (non-destructive to project state), existing destinations are rejected (no silent overwrite), and the path is allowlisted. It omits what happens on timeout and the async request/session protocol, but the side-effect profile an agent most needs is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and artifact, then the constraints. No filler and nothing redundant; the only mild inefficiency is that the path-allowlist and no-overwrite rules are compressed into one sentence without stating the remedy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a four-parameter tool with three required identifiers and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the session/request_id contract and the relationship to host_plugin_export unexplained — an agent could form the call but would be guessing at the async convention.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it only does so for one of four parameters — 'destination' gains real meaning via the roots allowlist and the no-overwrite rule. session_id, request_id, and timeout_seconds are completely undocumented in both schema and description, and the session/request correlation pattern is essential to invoking this correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with the exact artifact produced ('Export the live project with unsaved settings as a new 3MF copy'), and the 'live/unsaved' qualifier tells the agent this captures in-memory state rather than disk state. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling host_plugin_export, leaving that routing decision to the agent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives hard preconditions (destination must be under ORCA_MCP_ROOTS and the plugin's export_roots; existing destinations are rejected), which tells the agent when a call will fail. It never says when to prefer this over host_plugin_export or other export siblings, nor what to do if the destination already exists — usage is implied rather than guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.